Here it is the 50D, what's next?

[wickerprints]

I've pointed it out before and got shot down for it, but nobody seems to care that Canon has made a very deliberate distinction with respect to model number and sensor format. If the sensor is APS-C, the model number is X0D (or with earlier cameras, DX0), XX0D, or X000D. If the sensor is APS-H, the model number is 1D. If the sensor is 35mm, the model number is 5D or 1Ds. This has been the nomenclature since Canon started making DSLRs and I would be extremely, extremely surprised if they would suddenly break this pattern. As such, calling a putative 16MP 35mm format camera a "1DmkIV" flies in the face of nearly a decade of branding history. It is far, far more likely that such a camera would be given a new series number.


Please note that I am not saying a camera with that particular feature set would never be released. I am simply pointing out that calling it a 1DmkIV would be inconsistent with the history of how Canon labels its EOS Digital bodies.


Similarly, to say that the evolution in the X0D series cameras is to move them to APS-H makes no sense either. Moving that product line to APS-H would undermine the sales of EF-S lenses and more importantly reduce consumer confidence in the continued support of the EF-S mount. The problem is this: Why design an EF-S lens with superior optics if that brings up the price point to a level that exceeds the budget of the typical consumer that purchases an EF-S body? Someone who buys a Rebel is not likely to want to drop $1000+ on a sharp EF-S lens when he can buy an excellent EF lens and be assured of its continued support. So it's a Catch-22 for Canon, one that would be made even worse should they transition the X0D series to APS-H.


Furthermore, giving the 5DmkII all those things you describe--what would that leave for the 1Ds series? The pixel count and sensor format are the same. You're basically describing a 1DsIII that shoots 1080p video, but you want it for $2700. Well, who wouldn't?


All this speculation and fantasizing is worthless. It is only going to set you up for disappointment and take you away from the important thing, which is to enjoy taking pictures. If you're holding out for the perfect digital body, you're in for a rude awakening each time Canon brings out the next new model and it just doesn't have that perfect combination of features you want.

[peety3]

I've pointed it out before and got shot down for it, but nobody seems to care that Canon has made a very deliberate distinction with respect to model number and sensor format. If the sensor is APS-C, the model number is X0D (or with earlier cameras, DX0), XX0D, or X000D. If the sensor is APS-H, the model number is 1D. If the sensor is 35mm, the model number is 5D or 1Ds. This has been the nomenclature since Canon started making DSLRs and I would be extremely, extremely surprised if they would suddenly break this pattern. As such, calling a putative 16MP 35mm format camera a "1DmkIV" flies in the face of nearly a decade of branding history. It is far, far more likely that such a camera would be given a new series number.

I see two sides to this. Chuck Westfall from Canon hasn't committed that APS-H is here to stay, so that leaves the door open for them to break the mold. On the other side, you're right and I've been agreeing with that stance on CanonRumors for a while - the folks who think the 1D4 will be full-frame don't seem to respect the legacy of the model numbers, and the folks who say "Canon is stupid if they don't make the 1D4 full-frame" don't seem to understand the confusion that three pro-level full-frame models might create.

All this speculation and fantasizing is worthless. It is only going to set you up for disappointment and take you away from the important thing, which is to enjoy taking pictures. If you're holding out for the perfect digital body, you're in for a rude awakening each time Canon brings out the next new model and it just doesn't have that perfect combination of features you want.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I agree. I want to replace my Rebel XTi with a more-capable (and more similar interface) body soon, ideally with a 1D4 but I'm also considering a 40D or 50D. But to be honest, I think it's going to have to wait until 2010 for me.

[Benjamin]

the folks who think the 1D4 will be full-frame don't seem to respect the legacy of the model numbers,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I wouldn't think it's exactly wise to not do what might be the best just because of a model number. I'm not the ones to insist that the 1D IV must be FF, but if it remains in 1.3x, I'd like to hear a better reason than matching the model number. In my humble opinion, the benefit of a FF sensor should at least be able to make up what we lose from the APS-H.


Nikon now has 3 FF cameras, instead of defining their move as "does not make sense", I'd like to see it as an alternative path to take. Nikon is successful so far, that's why I would like Canon to do more.


Anyway, we'll see.

[wickerprints]

I wouldn't think it's exactly wise to not do what might be the best just because of a model number. I'm not the ones to insist that the 1D IV must be FF, but if it remains in 1.3x, I'd like to hear a better reason than matching the model number. In my humble opinion, the benefit of a FF sensor should at least be able to make up what we lose from the APS-H.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Again, my point is not about what Canon will release next. My point is about what they will CALL it. Those are two entirely different things. Of course it would not be wise to allow a model number to dictate what features a camera should have, but that was not what I implied and I said as much. And it would be equally unwise to do what Nikon has done to its lineup and make a complete mess of its nomenclature. The D300 is "DX" format but the D700 is 35mm. What's going to happen when these bodies go through a few more revisions? Even worse, the D60 is entry level but the D90 is mid-range? Then they threw in the D5000 and now all hell breaks loose because nobody can figure out from the model numbers which model is supposed to be newer. At least with the Canon lineup everything makes sense. Their 3- and 4-digit series are the entry level bodies, the 2-digit series is the mid-range, and the 1-digit series are the high-end, which is further split out into the 1D(s) series which is the "pro" level. Furthermore the model number tells you what format the sensor is.


I reiterate my statement that if Canon will produce a 16MP 35mm sensor body, it should be given a new series name to distinguish it from the existing lineup. Perhaps we won't have a 1D-series any more, but it will be replaced by something else. I don't know. And it may seem like splitting hairs but I look at what Nikon has done and it's just confusing as hell, and I would really, really hate for Canon to do the same. (Nikon bodies and lenses are ugly too but that's my personal bias).


Nikon is successful because their bodies have better noise performance, superior AF, and better FPS. Canon is successful because their lens lineup ROCKS and they are often the innovators in the field. These are two different companies with two different visions of how to make cameras. It's not reasonable to say that one has to match or play catch-up to what the other is doing because they have inherently different methods as to how to go about making good cameras. And that's why I am puzzled by your insistence on this particular issue. If you are unhappy then switch systems.

[Benjamin]

wickerprints,


You seem to know a lot about Canon and Nikon.


Let me make my thoughts clearer into just one question here: why does the upcoming camera (whatever it's gonna be called) that replaces the current 1D III better to remain in APS-H?


I totally agree with you about the naming issue, I can see Nikon has somewhat messed up their lineup by giving names that does not come as a whole. I'm also not in any way insisting either on what a FF 16MP camera would be called or should a replacement of the 1D III be FF. However, there're questions that's not answered, or at least not satisfactorily convincing; such as is there any technical difficulty to make a fast FF digital camera? I can see the benefit of a FF replacement of the 1D III while I don't quite understand why an APS-H sensor is here to stay unless there're very solid reasons.


On the other hand, if naming has a lot to do with the format, please think back to the film ages when Canon still made 5 lines of SLRs. They all shoot film, from the top-of-the-line EOS 1V to EOS 3, followed by Elan, Rebel T and Rebel K in different production lines. They were all in the same format as 35mm film; but their feature, function, utility, reliability, etc divided them into 5 different categories. Today Canon makes 5 lines of digital SLRs, unfortunately they're in different formats mainly due to manufacture cost of their sensors. Canon once said to eventually generalize FF sensor on most of their products - I think that will eventually form a similar lineup as the film ages - cameras differ because of their utility, quality and price, not the format itself.


I will appreciate if you can share more thoughts on the replacement of the 1D III since that's really why I'm here to argue. As I said, I see FF being superior as a sensor along, and Canon should do it whenever possible. I'd like to see Canon makes most of their cameras in FF format at reasonable costs in the future.


Ben